Poverty is the ultimate form of control

[Rosebud77]

In my part of the country, there are more jobs than people to take them. And they’re not all “bottom tier” jobs, either.

I do know some people who live in poverty, but virtually all of them fit into one or two categories; the truly disabled and the drug-addicted who will not do anything about it.

As to the former, I know of no good resolution other than governmental and private aid at some level. By definition, they can’t help themselves, and the Church holds that we have an obligation toward them.

As to the latter, I’m not sure anything can help.

If you eliminated those two categories, almost nobody lives in poverty, at least around here.

So we make sure they have the means to live. These basic needs that are called rights are to be met. No judgment. Just feed the hungry. That alone will help.

When i was first ill, I felt guilty about being on benefits. It worried me so much. Then my mother made me see that she had worked and paid taxes all her life and that that was paying my sick pay… I tried and tried to get back into work; given that my illness was misdiagnosed, I had a snowball;s chance in hell of that, But always i volunteered and helped where I could; and living a life of prayer was and is a giving.

Feeding helps. Period.

 

[minkymurph]

You posted an idea that you think won’t work. But your posted idea is a cutout of a general ideology oversimplified.

Fair comment - it is a cutout of a general ideology. It can be said it was oversimplified but short posts on the internet tend to be. My intention was to initiate discussion and debate, thus I made a short statement that could subsequently be expanded.

Typically when someone thinks that “tax cuts” are the entirety of a theory it is via propaganda and the same people by into much more.

Truth is there are of course bad, evil, or incompetent and just plain wrong people on all sides so perhaps there is like one guy who wants to do nothing but cut a couple taxes lol.

And your tone though maybe misundwrstood seemed to be of someone who believes “cut a couple taxes for rich people” is the entirety of the idea.

I still don’t understand what you mean but as far as my understanding can serve me tax cuts are not an idea. Governments implement tax cuts as part of their economic policy and that’s a reality not an idea.

And given the % of carholics being in the 60%s it is a safe bet that although held back by the church teaching on a few issues, more catholics than not agree with the politics of those who say abortion is a woman’s rights.

The propaganda trick is that war on women might be taken less so by a catholic,

The 60% still believe the rest war on poor people, war on minorities etc.

They believe that anything short of soemthing Stalin esque is mean to anyone who is not Bill Gates.

And my reference to cities with high catholic population, noting they are the most Stalin like cities and while chasing the hammer and cycl (idk how to spell it right now lol) dream they have all voted for policies that breed the best places for abortions and leading gay marriage cities.

These are the areas, cities and states with a disproportionate amout of carholics.

I can’t comment on what Catholic’s living in ‘Stalin like cities’ may think as I don’t know, but this thread was not initiated for the purpose of discussion abortion or gay rights. It may be the case you see an intrinsic link between abortion, women’s rights and gay rights and economic policy and if you can explain the link I’m happy to read your posts, but I think it’s a considerable stretch of the imagination to assume someone who supports implementing policies to tackle poverty endorses abortion and gay rights to achieve that objective.

This was not intended as a ‘rights’ thread. My intention was to initiate discussion on economic policies that fulfill the Catholic obligation to assist the poor. Taxes were mentioned in the context that in my view ‘Trickle down’ policies do not sufficiently achieve that objective. Tax cuts were mentioned as according to my information even some of those who advocate trickle down policies have stated the poor derive little benefit from tax cuts. I believe one of those people was Reagan who implemented other policies in conjunction with tax cuts for this reason? Correct me if I am wrong.

I personally don’t know anyone who believes anything short of Stalinism is mean to anyone who is not Bill Gates.

But apologies if you are not in the 60% good sir, just seemed your tone.

I’m not a ‘sir’ so it shows how easy it is to jump to the wrong conclusions.

 

[minkymurph]

So we make sure they have the means to live. These basic needs that are called rights are to be met. No judgment. Just feed the hungry. That alone will help.

When i was first ill, I felt guilty about being on benefits. It worried me so much. Then my mother made me see that she had worked and paid taxes all her life and that that was paying my sick pay… I tried and tried to get back into work; given that my illness was misdiagnosed, I had a snowball;s chance in hell of that, But always i volunteered and helped where I could; and living a life of prayer was and is a giving.

Feeding helps. Period.

Well you certainly can’t do much without food.

If people can’t work because they are ill or other reasons beyond their control that’s not their fault, and individuals and their families that paid into a system for the purpose of receiving benefits in such situations are entitled to those benefits. If you paid school fees and the school then said, ‘sorry your child can’t come here even though you’ve paid’ I would say you be entitled to feel miffed. The same can be said if you paid into an insurance scheme yet when your house or car was damaged they wouldn’t pay out, and as you’ve said many individuals who do not have a job still contribute to society.

To buy food one needs an income. To generate an income one needs a job. To get a job one needs an education. Thus, policies that enable people to get an education, a job, receive a fair wage but a fair days work and thus feed themselves would temper the effects of poverty. Everyone on board so far?

 

[LethalMouse]

Fair comment - it is a cutout of a general ideology. It can be said it was oversimplified but short posts on the internet tend to be. My intention was to initiate discussion and debate, thus I made a short statement that could subsequently be expanded.

I still don’t understand what you mean but as far as my understanding can serve me tax cuts are not an idea. Governments implement tax cuts as part of their economic policy and that’s a reality not an idea.

I can’t comment on what Catholic’s living in ‘Stalin like cities’ may think as I don’t know, but this thread was not initiated for the purpose of discussion abortion or gay rights. It may be the case you see an intrinsic link between abortion, women’s rights and gay rights and economic policy and if you can explain the link I’m happy to read your posts, but I think it’s a considerable stretch of the imagination to assume someone who supports implementing policies to tackle poverty endorses abortion and gay rights to achieve that objective.

This was not intended as a ‘rights’ thread. My intention was to initiate discussion on economic policies that fulfill the Catholic obligation to assist the poor. Taxes were mentioned in the context that in my view ‘Trickle down’ policies do not sufficiently achieve that objective. Tax cuts were mentioned as according to my information even some of those who advocate trickle down policies have stated the poor derive little benefit from tax cuts. I believe one of those people was Reagan who implemented other policies in conjunction with tax cuts for this reason? Correct me if I am wrong.

I personally don’t know anyone who believes anything short of Stalinism is mean to anyone who is not Bill Gates.

I’m not a ‘sir’ so it shows how easy it is to jump to the wrong conclusions.

Okay, well this link has states and just a few:

huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/09/most-catholic-states_n_4747647.html

But all of the states here are typically run by those who are against tax cuts.

And it doesn’t take much to see how these lean in general.

It goes on and on if we were to evaluate it.

Even Europe is mostly a good example

 

[Jake_Parker]

Who?

Does that answer your question?

Here is a small summary of what was proposed:
Simplify the tax code and downsize the IRS so we can unleash an economic boom that creates millions of jobs, boosts wages, and expands opportunity for all. Also, Auditing the Federal Reserve; basically fighting for more transparency of our Federal Reserve. And creating term limits on more politicians, so that we don’t have “career politicians.”

 

[BobCatholic]

There are many types of “trickle down” economics, so which one?

Keynesianism? “If the government were to spend more money on cronies, those cronies will eventually spend money and ordinary people benefit because they’ll eventually get some of that money.”

Monetarism? “If the government were to print more money, and let cronies get more money, those cronies will eventually spend money and ordinary people benefit because they’ll eventually get some of that money.”

“Trickle down” - “If the government were to cut taxes for cronies, that frees up money fore cronies, those cronies will eventually spend money and ordinary people benefit because they’ll eventually get some of that money.”

Wait, I see a pattern here…

Now you know why none of these work.

 

[minkymurph]

Okay, well this link has states and just a few:

huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/09/most-catholic-states_n_4747647.html

But all of the states here are typically run by those who are against tax cuts.

And it doesn’t take much to see how these lean in general.

It goes on and on if we were to evaluate it.

Even Europe is mostly a good example

I’m not against tax cuts. My position is the government should implement policies that benefit society as a whole. Where tax cuts benefit society as a whole there is nothing wrong with that, but the reality is tax cuts are of little benefit to individuals on low to moderate incomes in terms of disposable income, and if goods and services they purchase become more expensive as a consequence of tax cuts they have even less disposable income. Thus, where the government implements tax cuts they should do appropriately, and simultaneously implement policies that benefit those who derive little from tax cuts.

 

[LethalMouse]

I’m not against tax cuts. My position is the government should implement policies that benefit society as a whole. Where tax cuts benefit society as a whole there is nothing wrong with that, but the reality is tax cuts are of little benefit to individuals on low to moderate incomes in terms of disposable income, and if goods and services they purchase become more expensive as a consequence of tax cuts they have even less disposable income. Thus, where the government implements tax cuts they should do appropriately, and simultaneously implement policies that benefit those who derive little from tax cuts.

Yet the other general alternative is more welfare and raise min wage instantly and astronomically.

Have you been to McDs lately? They raised wages and everything went up

If they make min wage 15 tomorrow the min wage will be good for 6 months to a year and then they and everyone int he current 13-20 bracket will be poor.

They advocate dragging people down with them because they lack the knowledge to understand economics… which explains their status

But seriously there is no “one simple solution” but when I say about ideology, the thread tone is against one side in essence while by default suggesting the “otherside” is more right.

In truth here is the solution

From the gov standpoint President on down to min wage, whatever if it is connected to gov they get the same % raise

For example as a low level gov I make about 20/hr
I got a 1% raise

In my state anyway min wage got 10%

That means when you look at proces thougj it took a few months to catch up I took a 9% pay cut.

My life got 9% worse because liberals

Now I say min wage gets 1% i get 1% and pres gets 1%

Simple… but instead

Min wage got 10% and I think the big wigs got like 4-6% I honestly forget.

Basically the rich stay rich and the middle gets poorer. The joke is in the por thinking they got lifted up. No the bar just got raised.

If min wage is raised 200% then the poverty line will level out 200% within a year. You will still be poor if you dont either live smart or excell.

There is no other option, we need to fix people… ha good luck, we doomed.

 

[minkymurph]

Yet the other general alternative is more welfare and raise min wage instantly and astronomically.

General alternative to what? Is your position lowering taxes is in itself sufficient to meet the Catholic obligation to assist the poor? Yes or No? I use a question mark to indicate I am asking a question and not making assumptions as to your position.

Have you been to McDs lately? They raised wages and everything went up

Yes. Not because I like McD’s. I think their food is synthetic processed food. I much prefer my own homemade burgers and stuff. My kids love McD’s which is why we go there and I haven’t noticed any significant difference in their prices from the minimum wage was raised. If their has been it has not stopped me taking my kids there as I still find it cheap.

If they make min wage 15 tomorrow the min wage will be good for 6 months to a year and then they and everyone int he current 13-20 bracket will be poor.

Would this be as a consequence of inflation? Or solely because of an increase in the minimum wage?

They advocate dragging people down with them because they lack the knowledge to understand economics… which explains their status

Who lacks this knowledge? What is the status of this ‘who?’ Have this ‘who’ expressed any opinions on this thread? If so what in your view is wrong with what they say? If not,
why are we discussing what the ‘who’? think? To my knowledge we are only discussing what posters on this thread think.

But seriously there is no “one simple solution” but when I say about ideology, the thread tone is against one side in essence while by default suggesting the “otherside” is more right.

Who’s advocating one simple solution? Not I. I wrote in my original post @Trickle down policies should encompass strategies that compensate for the effects of poverty other than charity’ The term ‘strategies that compensate for the effects of poverty other than charity’ cannot to me be interpreted as I think there there is one simple solution.

Who are the ‘otherside?’ As an Irish Catholic the ‘otherside’ to me are those who perceive themselves as British and want to remain part of the union. Many Catholics and Protestants agree on economic issues. Their differences are rooted in identity and the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and this places them on opposite sides. I would guess your use of the term ‘the otherside’ has a different meaning - the point being you cannot attribute ideologies to me in the same context as who in your part of the world you perceive as ‘the otherside.’

In truth here is the solution

From the gov standpoint President on down to min wage, whatever if it is connected to gov they get the same % raise

For example as a low level gov I make about 20/hr
I got a 1% raise

In my state anyway min wage got 10%

That means when you look at proces thougj it took a few months to catch up I took a 9% pay cut.

My life got 9% worse because liberals

Now I say min wage gets 1% i get 1% and pres gets 1%

Simple… but instead

Min wage got 10% and I think the big wigs got like 4-6% I honestly forget.

Basically the rich stay rich and the middle gets poorer. The joke is in the por thinking they got lifted up. No the bar just got raised.

If min wage is raised 200% then the poverty line will level out 200% within a year. You will still be poor if you dont either live smart or excell.

From what you have stated it still remains unclear to me what you perceive as truth and a solution to reducing the effects of poverty. Are you saying the minimum wage should be raised or it should not? Are you saying the poor should be smarter and excel more and this is the solution?

There is no other option, we need to fix people… ha good luck, we doomed.

I have no desire to fix people so I don’t need luck in that regard. I agree with facilitating opportunity. If those who are afforded opportunity choose not to avail of it there is little anyone can do, but opportunity should not in the first instance be denied to oppress either directly or covertly to oppress for selfish gain. I don’t think it can be said no one in society abuses power for in order to oppress others, and doing nothing in circumstance where we can do something endorsed oppression.

We’re doomed? Nothing wrong with a healthy dose of pessimism as it keeps the optimists feet on the ground, but a society devoid of hope is a bit extreme. As Peter Ustinov once said, ‘The pessimist may be right in the end but the optimist has a better time on the trip.’

On a more serious note we cannot and should not expect utopia, but should we do nothing to assist the poor as it is such a hopeless task? If we should do something, what?

 

[minkymurph]

There are many types of “trickle down” economics, so which one?

Keynesianism? “If the government were to spend more money on cronies, those cronies will eventually spend money and ordinary people benefit because they’ll eventually get some of that money.”

Monetarism? “If the government were to print more money, and let cronies get more money, those cronies will eventually spend money and ordinary people benefit because they’ll eventually get some of that money.”

“Trickle down” - “If the government were to cut taxes for cronies, that frees up money fore cronies, those cronies will eventually spend money and ordinary people benefit because they’ll eventually get some of that money.”

Wait, I see a pattern here…

Now you know why none of these work.

Choose whatever one you like as as you say, none of them work.

 

[LethalMouse]

General alternative to what? Is your position lowering taxes is** in itself sufficient **to meet the Catholic obligation to assist the poor? Yes or No? I use a question mark to indicate I am asking a question and not making assumptions as to your position.

Of course not I am not crazy

Yes. Not because I like McD’s. I think their food is synthetic processed food. I much prefer my own homemade burgers and stuff. My kids love McD’s which is why we go there and I haven’t noticed any significant difference in their prices from the minimum wage was raised. If their has been it has not stopped me taking my kids there as I still find it cheap.

Ah IDK about Ireland McD’s

Would this be as a consequence of inflation? Or solely because of an increase in the minimum wage?

Apply the same logic you used in asserting tax cuts would cause everything to be more expensive

Who lacks this knowledge? What is the status of this ‘who?’ Have this ‘who’ expressed any opinions on this thread? If so what in your view is wrong with what they say? If not,
why are we discussing what the ‘who’? think? To my knowledge we are only discussing what posters on this thread think.

I thought a discussion on the state of overall things was allowed to include such. The “who” lacking knowledge with exception of course is generally the min wage people.

(of course lagely based on US arguments from my POV.

Who’s advocating one simple solution? Not I. I wrote in my original post @Trickle down policies should encompass strategies that compensate for the effects of poverty other than charity’ The term ‘strategies that compensate for the effects of poverty other than charity’ cannot to me be interpreted as I think there there is one simple solution.

Who are the ‘otherside?’ As an Irish Catholic the ‘otherside’ to me are those who perceive themselves as British and want to remain part of the union. Many Catholics and Protestants agree on economic issues. Their differences are rooted in identity and the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and this places them on opposite sides. I would guess your use of the term ‘the otherside’ has a different meaning - the point being you cannot attribute ideologies to me in the same context as who in your part of the world you perceive as ‘the otherside.’

Again I apologize due to applying the 2 prevailing arguments in US issues. I know often other nations do have similar sides perhaps, but the assessment can be much further off given your being across the pond

From what you have stated it still remains unclear to me what you perceive as truth and a solution to reducing the effects of poverty. Are you saying the minimum wage should be raised or it should not? Are you saying the poor should be smarter and excel more and this is the solution?

Min Wage sometimes raised, yes but not at the rate that the current “occupy” and “99%er” movements claim.

And yes, I think there is a lot more cultural and personal about the state of “poor” people. Some of which was summed up earlier in their desire to live above their means. You could live on min wage for example here and live pretty well OBJECTIVELY… of course subjectively no new shiny stuff with the latest and greatest…

I mean why cant their kids have the myriad of $2 action figures? no they must have the name brand!

Why can’t they get a used one gen back videogame system? etc etc

I have no desire to fix people so I don’t need luck in that regard. I agree with facilitating opportunity. If those who are afforded opportunity choose not to avail of it there is little anyone can do, but opportunity should not in the first instance be denied to oppress either directly or covertly to oppress for selfish gain. I don’t think it can be said no one in society abuses power for in order to oppress others, and doing nothing in circumstance where we can do something endorsed oppression.

The idea that the opportuinity is not there is often a great fallacy. Though again in fairness I know more of the US angle and not the Irish. And IDK if the whole british vs Irish still causes much issue and if so I am sorry that sucks

We’re doomed? Nothing wrong with a healthy dose of pessimism as it keeps the optimists feet on the ground, but a society devoid of hope is a bit extreme. As Peter Ustinov once said, ‘The pessimist may be right in the end but the optimist has a better time on the trip.’

Not doomed, but note the bible! More people attack the City of God than not in the end.
The narrow gate is goodness NARROW

So in truth there are per Jesus more people who suck than not.

On a more serious note we cannot and should not expect utopia, but should we do nothing to assist the poor as it is such a hopeless task? If we should do something, what?

Do what we can do

 

[minkymurph]

Of course not I am not crazy

Glad to hear it, but don’t knock being crazy. It can be an asset.

Ah IDK about Ireland McD’s

No problem, and I may be wrong but I think the minimum wage is higher here than in the US.

Apply the same logic you used in asserting tax cuts would cause everything to be more expensive

It’s a fact that things can be become more expensive as a consequence of imprudent tax cuts. This is illustrated by Thatcher’s policies. Against the advice of her own cabinet she made imprudent income tax cuts and attempted to compensate through controlling inflation by raising interest rates and implementing another tax, or as she called it community charge - used to pay for amenities. Raising interest rates had the affect of doubling mortgage repayments and vast numbers of people had their home repossessed, and the community charge led to her own cabinet ousting her. This is not my opinion. It is well documented and a member of her former cabinet said his main issue with Thatcher was her treatment of the poor.

I thought a discussion on the state of overall things was allowed to include such. The “who” lacking knowledge with exception of course is generally the min wage people.

(of course lagely based on US arguments from my POV.

Of course it’s allowed, so long as you clarify. Now you have you can now categorize me as the other as I am in favour of a national minimum wage and also currently earn the minimum wage - though in the process of establishing my own lifestyle business in which case I will not be able to afford to pay myself the minimum wage.

That said, if was taking someone else on I would have no problem paying them the minimum wage as I believe it’s an insult to pay any less. I paid a young girl who cared for my kids whilst I was at university more than the minimum wage and she was worth every penny, though I don’t believe I have a foolhardy approach. Recently it was proposed the minimum wage be raised to £9.00 her hour and this to me is a step too far and will put people out of work. Good employers here pay more than the minimum wage. Some up to £8.20 per hour and when they advertise jobs I think half the nation applies This enables them to cream the best which to me makes good business sense - but what would I know.

I mean why cant their kids have the myriad of $2 action figures? no they must have the name brand!

Why can’t they get a used one gen back videogame system? etc etc

I think it’s because such people put so much emphasis on image and having ‘stuff.’ There are several reasons for this. To them ‘stuff’ makes them happy through enhancing their image, though I can’t see why they think the pyjamas do. Do you have ‘pyjama people’ in your part of the world?

The idea that the opportuinity is not there is often a great fallacy. Though again in fairness I know more of the US angle and not the Irish. And IDK if the whole british vs Irish still causes much issue and if so I am sorry that sucks

Opportunities are there but not everyone has the capacity to avail of those opportunities. As said on this forum education is fundamental to availing of opportunity. I always wanted to go to university but didn’t have the opportunity. I finally got there thanks to a scheme the university implemented for people like me.

Do what we can do

Like implementing policies that help people to help themselves and facilitate autonomy?

 

[LethalMouse]

Glad to hear it, but don’t knock being crazy. It can be an asset.

I’m fun crazy, just not economics crazy

No problem, and I may be wrong but I think the minimum wage is higher here than in the US.

You said 8.20, it is 8.25 here and due to pressure many are paying 9 ish to “look good” while raising prices so the min wage worker is still just as poor buying power wise.

Give or take a bit on conversion it seems similar

Of course it’s allowed, so long as you clarify. Now you have you can now categorize me as the other as I am in favour of a national minimum wage and also currently earn the minimum wage - though in the process of establishing my own lifestyle business in which case I will not be able to afford to pay myself the minimum wage.

That said, if was taking someone else on I would have no problem paying them the minimum wage as I believe it’s an insult to pay any less. I paid a young girl who cared for my kids whilst I was at university more than the minimum wage and she was worth every penny, though I don’t believe I have a foolhardy approach. Recently it was proposed the minimum wage be raised to £9.00 her hour and this to me is a step too far and will put people out of work. Good employers here pay more than the minimum wage. Some up to £8.20 per hour and when they advertise jobs I think half the nation applies This enables them to cream the best which to me makes good business sense - but what would I know.

So if you say 9 min is bad and I say the movement here for FIFTEEN is bad, I’d say we sort of agree it can be done foolishly lol. 15 from 8 is a big leap that would destroy the economy

And here many babysitters can make more than min wage. You are striking out to start a business. Good for you! See you arent sitting unmotivated in McDonalds whining then

I think it’s because such people put so much emphasis on image and having ‘stuff.’ There are several reasons for this. To them ‘stuff’ makes them happy through enhancing their image, though I can’t see why they think the pyjamas do. Do you have ‘pyjama people’ in your part of the world?

You mean people going to their errands all day in pajamas?

Opportunities are there but not everyone has the capacity to avail of those opportunities. As said on this forum education is fundamental to availing of opportunity. I always wanted to go to university but didn’t have the opportunity. I finally got there thanks to a scheme the university implemented for people like me.

If you are not familar look up Mike Rowe. College isn’t the end all be all. I don’t have a degree yet am far from poor and whining. It is not that hard. The suggestion people are nothing without a degree just gives people an excuse to be lazy and whine IMO. There are SOO many non poverty jobs that don’t require a degree. Let alone old fashioned grit like working 2 jobs for a short while so you can invest etc… no one wants to work

Like implementing policies that help people to help themselves and facilitate autonomy?

IMO it has more to do with culture and less policy.

First given out of wedlock and divorces more money is spent in court then on living. A family of four is actually a family of 4 families of 4 now. No wonder they are poor!.

Telling people if they didnt go to coklege they will be poor.

Creating a welfare state. Etc

And the issue is there comes a point where for example not just taxes but if you qualify you get sooo much.

So if you make about 29K here say roughly you get special lunch proces or free in school. Free childcare, free dental, free medical.

Now if offered a job making 30 and you risk losing the help, that help is worth WAY more than 1K a year.

So why move up incrementally when it causes you to go down???
You make 1K and lose like 10+K of help.

I am not agaisnt welfare ideals, but against the implementation. It needs accurately incremental. If you make 1K more you only lose 1K of help…

But sadly that is not how it works.

 

[Sarcelle]

I want to mark this and come back later.

However, one fellow I know grew up in Harlem. His mom pushed him to finish high school. After that he joined the Air Force and learned that the military has phenomenal educational opportunities. So he availed himself of ALL of them, and got his degree.

After he got out of the Air Force, he was able to get a job on Wall Street and eventually opened up his own firm.

His major irritation is that … he asks: “how many of my Air Force buddies took advantage of all that free education?”.

Answer: ZERO.

More than anything else, he is annoyed that way too many poor people decline to get a good education, even when it is free.

I think it depends on how his Air Force peers grew up.

If your family did not value education, chances are neither would you.

If you dare defy familial tradition and get yourself into higher education, there is this negative reaction against you. Comments like “think you’re better than us?” or comments like “book smart but no common sense.” or if you are a member of an ethic minority, accused of acting white.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m fun crazy, just not economics crazy

You said 8.20, it is 8.25 here and due to pressure many are paying 9 ish to “look good” while raising prices so the min wage worker is still just as poor buying power wise.

Give or take a bit on conversion it seems similar
.

It may well be - particularly from BREXIT and the pound nose dived.

So if you say 9 min is bad and I say the movement here for FIFTEEN is bad, I’d say we sort of agree it can be done foolishly lol. 15 from 8 is a big leap that would destroy the economy

Yes we could agree that. I agree there should be a national minimum but it should be set in accordance with common sense.

And here many babysitters can make more than min wage. You are striking out to start a business. Good for you! See you arent sitting unmotivated in McDonalds whining then

Nope - I’m a ‘doer’ not a whiner and in actual fact, the nature of my business in empowering people in order that they stop whining and do.

Mind you it’s scary. I have just come home from discussing a loan at the Bank. I reckon I could manage to launch my business without borrowing but it would wipe all my capital. Borrowing money scares me. I’m a ‘neither a borrower nor a lender be’ person and follow the philosophy that if you don’t have the money for something you should do without it until you have, but saving to launch a business would take forever.

You mean people going to their errands all day in pajamas?

Yep. The pyjama people live at night and sleep during the day. Some of them have good pyjamas they wear to do their errands, and not so good pyjamas for taking the kids to school and such things. Interestingly they also have all the mods cons.

Creating a welfare state. Etc

On that point we have to differ as I agree with a welfare state.

Now if offered a job making 30 and you risk losing the help, that help is worth WAY more than 1K a year.

I agree with you. My solution to that is working should make you better of not worse off.

So why move up incrementally when it causes you to go down???
You make 1K and lose like 10+K of help.

I am not agaisnt welfare ideals, but against the implementation. It needs accurately incremental. If you make 1K more you only lose 1K of help…

But sadly that is not how it works.

Looks like we are pretty much on the same page in terms of principle. What we differ on appears to be the solution.

 

[LethalMouse]

So you total welfare??? Where pre tell does it come from?

Didnt the soviets try that?

Again help is good, dependence is bad and also master slave inducing more than anything. Nothing makes a secualr state like dependence.

An I am actually advocating in a sense giving more people some help. Just incentivizing getting on your own feet.

And what is mod cons?? Idk the term.

 

[minkymurph]

So you total welfare??? Where pre tell does it come from?

Didnt the soviets try that?

Again help is good, dependence is bad and also master slave inducing more than anything. Nothing makes a secualr state like dependence.

An I am actually advocating in a sense giving more people some help. Just incentivizing getting on your own feet.

And what is mod cons?? Idk the term.

Can you clarify what you mean by total welfare?

Don’t think the soviet’s copied the UK system. I too disagree with dependency.

Mod cons are modern conveniences and today would include technology.

 

[LethalMouse]

Can you clarify what you mean by total welfare?

Don’t think the soviet’s copied the UK system. I too disagree with dependency.

Mod cons are modern conveniences and today would include technology.

You said we disagree on a welfar state. Yet I laid out my version in which actually MORE people would get help which would ween them off.

And you said you want a welfare state.

Welfare state as common meaning that I know of is people delendent and ease and such epic pandemic welfare.

Like I said before too jt is a bit interesting you admit on one hand one can live on min wage yet we also say they need welfare hmmm.

Nkw this is where yes, help, like childcare or medicade maybe.

But then increment so that going from 8.25 to o.25 does not equal loss but even money until they break from needing help and truly have more money than they did on welfare.

But that is where there needs a good figuring of who needs help, and the fact that we no longer bother helping eachother but depend on the state. No family wathcing the kid…

Or you make min wage and your parents watch the kids and the state reimburses them… maybe helpful…

Or maybe your retired parents are well off and dont really nedd tbe money… soo amny ins and outs…

 

[minkymurph]

You said we disagree on a welfar state. Yet I laid out my version in which actually MORE people would get help which would ween them off.

And you said you want a welfare state.

Welfare state as common meaning that I know of is people delendent and ease and such epic pandemic welfare.

Epic pandemic welfare creates dependency culture. In the UK making a career out of the benefit system was created by high unemployment. Welfare as temporary measure in times of genuine need is different. For example a period of illness or compulsory redundancy.

Like I said before too jt is a bit interesting you admit on one hand one can live on min wage yet we also say they need welfare hmmm.

Actually I didn’t say I lived on the minimum wage. I earn the minimum wage on occasions when I work for someone else, but I don’t live on it.

Nkw this is where yes, help, like childcare or medicade maybe.

Yep. Women with children need help with childcare to facilitate their ability to work. Access to health is a basic human right and should not be based on the ability to pay.

Or you make min wage and your parents watch the kids and the state reimburses them… maybe helpful…

Or maybe your retired parents are well off and dont really nedd tbe money… soo amny ins and outs.

There is a scheme recently implemented in the UK to this address this. Grandparents can claim an allowance if they look after children, though not if their disposable income is over a certain amount.

 

[LethalMouse]

Actually I didn’t say I lived on the minimum wage. I earn the minimum wage on occasions when I work for someone else, but I don’t live on it.

Let me correct my angle, you agreed with the not needing fancy stuff and them mentioned pajama peeps.

The problem is if you don’t try to keep up with the jones then you can live decent minus oddities.

Yep. Women with children need help with childcare to facilitate their ability to work. Access to health is a basic human right and should not be based on the ability to pay.

And men, often another part of the problem is help is lopsoded to on group or another. I posted this before but note I was approached by a single dad and he asked me where to get help
I did not know. I reluctantly gave money and went home to look up where people can get help and print out a list.
I got rather sad but glad I gave the money as there was literally no place for a single dad
Moms with kids
Women
Drug addict single men

That is all the help there is…

There is a scheme recently implemented in the UK to this address this. Grandparents can claim an allowance if they look after children, though not if their disposable income is over a certain amount.

Sounds like a good idea. I just hope it is incremental and not instant number